Lonardo v. Mesa County Detention Facility et al

Filing 46

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/27/16. Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents # 44 and Defendants Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline # 45 are GRANTED. (lgale, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 15-cv-00492-KLM THOMAS JAMES LONARDO, Plaintiff, v. MIKE LEFABRE, DR. HOLMES, GRACE FARRELL, RN, KAREN TUCKER, CRN, and HEATHER HANREY, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents [#44]1 (the “Motion to Compel”) and on Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline [#45] (the “Motion for Extension”). The deadline for Plaintiff, who proceeds as a pro se litigant,2 to timely respond to the Motion to Compel [#44] has lapsed. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). 1 “[#44]” is an example of the convention the Court uses to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). This convention is used throughout this Order. 2 The Court must construe the filings of pro se litigants liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be the pro se litigant’s advocate, nor should the Court “supply additional factual allegations to round out [the pro se litigant’s] complaint or construct a legal theory on [his] behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110). In addition, pro se litigants must follow the same procedural rules that govern other litigants. Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994). -1- In the Motion to Compel [#44], Defendants assert that they propounded written discovery to Plaintiff on February 3, 2016. See Ex. A, Def.’s First Set of Written Discovery to Plaintiff Thomas James Lombardo [#44-1]. The discovery requests included copies of waivers for Plaintiff’s medical and incarceration records. See id. at 11-16. Plaintiff did not respond in any way to the requests, and on March 14, 2016, in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), Defendants wrote Plaintiff a letter requesting that he answer the discovery requests and sign the provided waivers. See Ex. B, Letter to Plaintiff dated 3/14/16 [#44-2]. Plaintiff also failed to respond to the letter. Motion to Compel [#44] at 3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B), “[a] party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be made if: . . . (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33; or (iv) a party fails to produce documents . . . as requested under Rule 34.” Here, the written discovery propounded by Defendants consisted of interrogatories under Rule 33 and requests for production under Rule 34. See Ex. A [#44-1]. Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the discovery propounded on him by Defendants on February 3, 2016, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Compel [#44] is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants’ First Set of Written Discovery to Plaintiff Thomas James Lonardo [#44-1] (including Defendants’ request for waivers regarding Plaintiff’s medical and incarceration records) no later than May 27, 2016. Plaintiff is warned that failure to timely respond will result in sanctions, including the possible dismissal of his case for failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension [#45] is GRANTED. The -2- discovery deadline is extended to June 28, 2016. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED sua sponte that the dispositive motions deadline is extended to July 28, 2016. Dated: April 27, 2016 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?